-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Brownlow 2024
- Thread starter Little Ziggyadee
- Start date
It's interesting you should say that, because it's also jogged the memory of a conversation I once had with an umpire of Williams' era. This bloke officiated several GFs and hundreds of matches. He said the same as you've described, also telling me in no uncertain terms Williams was a pr1ck. Perhaps it was the same one.
I understood what he was saying, but if the behaviour was that bad and illegal under the rules, why not put said player on report and deny them a medal through the proper channels? It certainly lends itself better to fulfilling the award's integrity instead of having a senior umpire supposedly stand over a junior colleague too afraid to fight back, because senior had his feelings hurt by Diesel one too many times.
It was more than 30 years ago and I suppose umpire abuse wasn't the big offence it is now, with it being penalised in matches these days, etc. But if it wasn't an offence under the letter of the law back then - and only in the umpire's opinion - then why did umpires interpret their voting by anything other than what was acceptable under the rules of the game they're employed to know?
Not liking someone simply wasn't/isn't a good enough reason not to give votes.
Yes, the award has a 'fairest' component - but if you're judging that under anything other than the rules as they're written in black and white, then unfortunately you've blown every last shred of the award's integrity.
Nuts, Nick received 1 vote Rd 13. Clear case of mistaken identity.
Daicos was notably subbed out of the game with just 15 disposals and it was hard not to believe the umpires had confused him with brother Josh, who had a game-high 34 disposals, and per the coaches, was the second-best player on the ground (seven coaches votes).
Daicos was notably subbed out of the game with just 15 disposals and it was hard not to believe the umpires had confused him with brother Josh, who had a game-high 34 disposals, and per the coaches, was the second-best player on the ground (seven coaches votes).
Need to get rid of the fairest component. Used to get suspended for real pr!ck acts, now you get suspended for well-intentioned tackles or bumps. And, whoever has the best lawyer (Carlton) or compromising photos of tribunal adjudicators wins. It's become a lottery.
Sack her husband for blabbing the secret details in the first place, wonder if some slightly estranged family member has a highly active betting account?
Yep.
This year has stung me more than any has for a very long time.
You can cop it if the cattle's no good. It's when the talent is there but not realised anywhere near its potential on a team level that it really hurts.
Windows can come and go very quickly. And this list and its stars are only getting older.
Wasn't that long ago Umpires were overheard laughing at n bagging out St Kiddenme on a flight back from Perth which incensed certain officials n got appropriately beiged by AFLHQ.
Last time we got a decent run from the umpires was some time before Balmey tore some skin off a few of the precious darlings.
It's no surprise they earned the tag maggots.
Yep this is the point the fairest criteria, is essentially decided via being reported. Otherwise as we've seen it comes down to personal feelings.
My own tuppence in response
Every proposed system will have it failings - and personally I don’t give a toss about the Brownlow anyway - never watch it and never follow it and don’t rate it.
So I’d be reluctant to spend more money on any new scheme at all. At least the umpires do it for nothing (in the sense that they do it as part of their current job)
But (quite apart from the cost aspect of your suggestion above) here’s a few names that would qualify for your expert panels - Matthew Lloyd, Tony Shaw, Kane Cornes, Gary Lyon, Tim and Jobe Watson, David King, lots of blokes from Geelong etc etc
Rather leave it to the umps
I have zero issue with Cripps winning the medal. Champion of the game. Warrior, very likable besides the fact he plays for them, the most unlikeable mob getting around. Long live his success and long live his teams demise.
But, getting 45 votes is preposterous. Ruins the integrity of the medal, the winner doesn't, the result does. This further illustrates how out of whack the umpires are with the game. Further illustrates how crazy the call of "the game has never been umpired better" was, is and further will be.
And just quietly the Boss's wife saying Bont won't go well, the greatest leak of all time and has got brushed over very quietly.
As always the AFL continues to be deeply unserious about connecting with or understanding it's base.
But, getting 45 votes is preposterous. Ruins the integrity of the medal, the winner doesn't, the result does. This further illustrates how out of whack the umpires are with the game. Further illustrates how crazy the call of "the game has never been umpired better" was, is and further will be.
And just quietly the Boss's wife saying Bont won't go well, the greatest leak of all time and has got brushed over very quietly.
As always the AFL continues to be deeply unserious about connecting with or understanding it's base.
A few of the Carlton supporters I know are saying that you need a new coach. Maybe that is the general feeling of a lot of supporters?
This year was so close and Carlton were thereabouts for quite a while. I suspect if you didn't have all those injuries at the end you would have had a home final and maybe even won it. Who knows what would have happened after that.
Carlton have 5 A graders ( Cripps, Walsh, Weitering, Curnow, McKay) , one who may become A Grade in De Koning, losing 3 of those at the end was crippling because the others around them couldn't pick up the slack and the drop off was quite dramatic. However I suspect most clubs would be the same.
So, back in the day, folks didn't get suspended for jabs to the guts. They didn't get suspended for jumper punches. They didn't even get reported - it'd get thrown out.
Diesel was the type of player who gave a lot of crap out. Took a lot too, especially from taggers, I have no doubt. But he was renowned for cheap shots, mouthing off at umpires, regularly arguing decisions.
But you can be a dirty player, without crossing the line into a reportable offence that would cause you to miss a game. Doesn't mean you qualify as "fairest". I think the hard bit for us fans, is we can't see when those issues.
As for calls to remove the term, I say there's 20000 other awards for MVP type conditions. Take your joy from those awards (Coaches and Players Association are very good choices for mine). Leave the Brownlow rules alone.
Let's just get the right game knowledge into those who vote.
Eg a defender who intercepts 15 kicks and keeps their opposing forward to 0-1 goals has had a good game. Maybe a great one if their corresponding disposal is good. We need to see worth in those games, not just ones where a midfielder gets a bunch of touches.
Please do not mention again until the trade negotiations are done. Please!
They used to be sponsored and by OPSM, but even they don't want to be associated with the umpires now.
My son reminded me yesterday and it still irks me, that we didn't pick Cripps in 2013. Then we could have had both Dusty and Cripps for 11 years...just imagine the possibilities. The only consolation is that 11 other clubs also passed on him before our pick. As mum said, Be grateful for what you've got!
